Authored by Yuveshen Naidoo and Luka Botes.
In February 2026 the High Court found that a former tenant who posted a misleading Google review about a property management business could be ordered, on an urgent basis, to remove it where the review caused ongoing reputational harm and did not qualify as fair comment.
The dispute followed the early and unexpected vacation of a rental property before the end of a fixed‑term lease. An exit inspection revealed damage and cleaning issues, and deductions were made from the deposit in line with the lease agreement. The parties later settled the deposit dispute. Despite this, the tenant posted a negative Google review suggesting that deposits were unfairly withheld and implying that this was a common practice affecting other tenants.
When requests to remove the review were ignored, the business approached the high court urgently.
The tenant argued that the matter was not urgent and that the review amounted to fair comment. The court disagreed. It accepted that online reviews can cause immediate and ongoing harm, particularly where prospective clients rely on them when deciding whether to engage a business. The court held that waiting for relief in the ordinary course would not prevent the continuing damage caused by the publication.
The court also rejected the defence of fair comment. While people are entitled to express opinions, that protection does not extend to factual statements that are misleading or incomplete. The review was presented as fact rather than opinion and failed to mention key context, including the contractual basis for the deductions, the condition of the property, and the fact that the dispute had already been settled. The suggestion that other tenants routinely lost their deposits was unsupported.
The court found that publishing selective facts in this way created a false impression and amounted to unlawful reputational harm. It ordered the tenant to remove the Google review within one calendar day and to pay the costs of the application.
The decision confirms that online reviews are not beyond legal scrutiny. Where a review crosses the line from opinion into misleading factual allegations, courts are prepared to intervene urgently to protect reputational interests.
Heiberg Estates CC v Maritz and Another (High Court Gauteng Division, Pretoria, February 2026).